(Continued from last week. Click here to read Part 1 and Part 2)

Gothard is taking the blessing promised throughout Deuteronomy and applying them to those who follow certain commands from the Mosaic law. The problem with this is that the blessings in Deuteronomy come only by following the whole law (see Deut 28:14 for example). Saying that following dietary laws, circumcising, and abstaining during the period will make you healthy, wealthy and wise is like saying that growing your hair long, not touching dead bodies, and not drinking alcohol will make you stronger than any other man. However, contrary to Mr. Gothard’s assertions, the Bible never teaches a direct connection between doing certain acts in the law and receiving blessings. The connection is between obeying all God’s commands and being blessed, not between following parts of the law and being blessed.

Notice that he doesn’t even bother to use I Corinthians 7:5 as support for his main argument. The command to abstain during the period is just assumed to be present in I Corinthians 7:5 and what I Corinthians 7:5 actually says is just tacked on to the end of the Old Testament (OT) law requirement. So, a verse which says to “don’t abstain except for mutual consent for the purpose of fasting and prayer” now is changed to a verse which says “Abstain for 2 weeks each month, period. Then if you want to abstain more than this, do it by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer and fasting.”

Notice there is no support at all for this claim. We are supposed to accept him as the expert on this I guess. Mr. Gothard must know best, him being single and all that.

Notice the verses he used here. Oh wait…there are none. Couldn’t even find a verse remotely related to this claim I guess.

So now, not only are blessings the result of following the OT restriction on abstinence, Mr. Gothard is now claiming that curses will result from not following it. At this point, it should become utterly clear that Gothard is a Legalist. He is blatantly putting Christians back under the blessings/curses of the OT covenant with Israel. Anyone who claims that the 14 day abstinence is just a suggestion for health reasons has not read closely what he teaches. The following confirms this beyond doubt…

Notice that abstaining for two weeks out of a month is no longer merely good advice or a suggestion for better health; now it is a MORAL STANDARD! One for which we should be asking forgiveness for violating.

According to I Corinthians 7, one purpose of marriage is to help with sexual self-control. According to I Corinthians 7, abstaining can lead to problems with self-control. The solution? Don’t abstain except for limited times for pursuit of some specific spiritual exercises. And note that these spiritual exercises of praying and fasting are not claimed to prevent problems of self-control, hence the need to stop abstaining as soon as the fasting/prayer is completed in order to avoid temptation. So according to Paul the solution to lack of sexual self-control is not abstaining, but indulging (within the proper context, of course).

So, Mr. Gothard gives three purposes for the law. The first two are supported with verses (and, amazingly, without a significant abuse present!). Yet the third claimed purpose is not supported with any Scripture. Guess why? Because it doesn’t appear in Scripture! The law reveals sin, but the law is not said to bring one to repentance. Gothard is likely overextending the meaning of Galatians 3:24.

He is hoping we ignore the fact that he earlier pointed out that violating the law of abstinence leads to bad consequences.

Again, notice there is no support for his theology here.

True, but this is not the only, or even the most common meaning of legalism.

Principles which Gothard unabashedly derives from the Mosaic law. This is another form of legalism–teaching Christians are morally obligated to follow the Mosaic law.

Gothard would have us believe that not following the Mosaic law is “sowing to our flesh” and that following the Mosaic law is “sowing to the Spirit.” How is this NOT legalism? How is this NOT false teaching?

(Click here to read a follow-up article to this series: “Sowing to the Flesh”)